I know Steven
Spielberg and George Lucas don't owe me a thing. My
matinee money over the years has made Steven & George
very, very, very rich men. Although some of their movies
run on "Spielberg/Lucas Autopilot," they're incredible
talents.
I've loved the "Indiana Jones" films, for better or for
worse, since seeing "Raiders" in 1981 as a wide-eyed 13
year-old punk with glasses. Like Indy, I'm a little bit
older and maybe more mellow now. As I hit my 40s, movies
no longer wow me like they once did. But I still marvel
at some movies and I still get excited about seeing
them. "Indy 4" is a perfect example of this. I was very
excited to see it, and I went in with an open mind.
As I write this semi-review on "Indy 4," I write it with
such respect and admiration for both George Lucas and
Steven Spielberg. My god, they're heroes of mine since
childhood. But even the great ones can have a hiccup, or
create something that misfires so badly, you wonder if
they were really paying attention to their target
audience.
I've had time to digest what I saw in "Indiana Jones and
the Crystal Skull," and it isn't settling well. I can't
help but to feel let down by Indy's latest adventure.
What I write here may bar me from ever going to
Skywalker Ranch, or getting invited to Amblin
Entertainment. But my feeling about watching "Crystal
Skull" comes from a bit of frustration. My reaction to
this movie is equivalent to buying a Coke. You know
you're getting that same great taste and quality you've
known almost all of your life. You've come to trust the
brand and the people behind it. You pop the top and as
you drink it, you grimace and realize that this drink
doesn't quite taste the same as you remember. In fact,
it's almost entirely different now. It tastes diluted
and the fizzy bubbles don't tickle your nose anymore.
It's flat. You've just bought New Coke, not Classic
Coke, and you don't like it.
I watched "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal
Skull" during a 10:30 a.m. showing on opening day. There
were about 30 other people in the 500-seat auditorium
with me. After sitting though a barrage of previews, the
movie began with the Paramount logo dissolving into a
prairie dog hill. Nice touch. The opening sequence
pulsated with Spielberg's technical perfection. The kids
racing the Russians gave me the sense that something bad
was going to happen to them. Nothing did, and the
Russians would decide to kill some other people instead.
Still, the sequence seemed right. I couldn't wait for
the anticipated arrival of Indy, kicking butt and asking
no questions.
When he finally shows up, Indy appears tired. Fatigued.
Maybe he even looked bored. This couldn't be right. It
took a long time for Indy to get up to speed. And I
don't mean just Indy. I know Indy is older. I can buy
that. Yet the movie itself seemed slowly plotted during
the whole Area 51 scene. It does finally pick up, but it
seems like it takes awhile to get there.
As the movie progressed, I shuffled in my seat. I hadn't
done that before in an "Indiana Jones." Even "Temple of
Doom" kept my interest, no matter how much I disliked
most of that movie. I tried focusing on "Crystal Skull"
being shown before my eyes. What was wrong here? Maybe
it was the projection that threw me off. Yes, that was
it. Watching the movie in rather dull and uninspiring
digital projection kind of made my eyes tired. No. That
wasn't it. There was something about the movie that
brought me down. Midway through the film, it clicked.
Poor Indiana Jones had officially jumped the shark.
The first thing I noticed was how mellow Harrison Ford
is in this film. He has carried each of the "Indiana
Jones" movies strongly on his shoulders. Despite plot
flaws and occasional weak characters in "Temple of Doom"
and "The Last Crusade," Ford was always full of energy
and enthusiasm for the role of Indy. Ford is one hell of
an actor. "Witness." "The Fugitive." "Raiders." He can
be a powerful presence on-screen. In some ways, he's got
the traits of tough guys like John Wayne, yet could be
powerfully quiet like Gary Cooper. In "Indy 4," Ford has
virtually none of the spunk he had in the original
trilogy. He plays the action pretty safely. He's almost
too cautious. He lets almost everyone else in the film
figure out the plot points for him. There's no sense of
adventure with Indy anymore, leading me to ask, "Why
make the movie in the first place?" In this film, he
seems like a facsimile of Indiana Jones. Where's the
heart? Where's the sense of confidence? Where's the hero
we've looked up to?
The movie literally drags on for a good 45-60 minutes
with virtually little action during the middle act. The
original three films rarely stopped for plot development
and dialogue. Everything was intertwined. Those movies,
for the most part, acted like a good roller coaster ride
with some scary dips and fast turns with barely a second
to catch your breath. Especially with "Raiders," you
left the theater breathless and wanting to go back and
see it again. You didn't have to rationalize the
logic of the movie. It just worked. "Crystal Skull"
takes a lot of time trying to explain things in the film
when they don't need to be explained. Here was a
wonderful premise with the aliens and mysterious
happenings, but nothing seems coherent. The script by
David Koepp is filled with some excellent scene
concepts, but then they're bogged down by too many
characters and back story. The dialogue isn't bad, but
it's not memorable.
Besides the uneven plot of "Crystal Skull," the
characters surrounding Indy aren't very interesting.
It's GREAT to see Karen Allen again. She was an
incredible love interest and occasional foe to Indy in
"Raiders." She had a lot of energy and wouldn't take
guff from no one, especially Indiana Jones. I loved her
role as Marion. She was every bit important to that
film. But in "Crystal Skull," she's given nothing to do.
She smiles goofily and argues with Indy for no reason.
We get a bogus history from her while she didn't see
Jones for years. Most of their scenes together seemed
like something out of a bad "Lethal Weapon" movie.
There's a short bit between Indy and Marion that totally
reminded me of their chemistry in 1981. It's the brief
scene in the truck when they're being transported by the
Russians. It was a good scene. I had hope that something
would happen in the movie here. But then the script
called for an unbelievable ending to their relationship
(and the movie) and I wanted to yell out, "COP-OUT!" For
a moment, my eyes rolled inside my head, just like
Toht's did in "Raiders."
Shia LaBeouf is better than what die hard fans would
expect. He's always been a good actor. But he feels out
of place in this film. I really don't think he was
necessary to the plot. I realize that if his character
was taken out of the film, there would be no subplot.
I'd be fine with that. Indy usually embarked on his
adventures with help from his friends, but it was Indy
who figured out how things worked. He relies a lot on
"Mutt" to figure things out. I get the idea of why Indy
does that, but I certainly don't think I'll be lining up
to see "Mutt Williams and the Temple of the Lost
Hippie." Why not bring back Indy's sidekick, Sallah? He
was much more fun than LaBeouf's character of Mutt
Williams.
Indy's other major sidekick, Mac (Ray Winstone), is
completely unbelievable. Winstone is a fine actor. In
fact, nearly everyone in this film comes from a dynamic
acting background. But I doubt if Indy would hang around
this guy, especially when he calls Indy, "Jonesy." That
would annoy me. The entire background of their supposed
adventures doesn't wash. They seem incompatible. The
addition of John Hurt and Jim Broadbent, fine actors as
they are, mean nothing to the plot of this film. Hurt
isn't necessary, and Broadbent is there to replace the
marvelous Denholm Elliot who played Brody in "Raiders"
and "Last Crusade." Broadbent's character feels like a
retread of Brody instead of making the character stand
out on his own.
The villains in "Indy 4" are not in the same league as
those in previous "Indy" adventures. Sure, Cate
Blanchett is kind of hot with the bob hairdo, but then
she segues from Rrrrrrrrussian into her British accent
on occasion. She doesn't scare me as an audience member,
nor do I root for her eventual death. She's on-screen
villain candy and not much more. Part of the problem is
that "Raiders" set the bar on great screen villains for
the "Indy" series. Toht and Belloq were brilliant and
evil. I guess it's pretty hard to top those villains.
I've read some reviews from "die hard" fans of Indiana
Jones accusing Lucas and Spielberg for "raping their
childhood" in making this latest movie. I think that's
pretty harsh, and pretty immature. Like Lucas has said,
it's only a movie and don't get your hopes up too high.
He and Steven aren't holding a machete above your neck
telling you to give them your $10.00 to see "Indy 4."
You don't have to see it. But we've bought into the
culture of Lucas and Spielberg for decades now. They're
icons on the level of Hitchcock or Ford (John). You go
into their movies expecting wonderful things to happen.
But they are human, and despite their amazing creative
energy, sometimes things don't always pan out as we'd
expect them to.
Part of the reason why I've been so critical of this
latest "Indy" movie is that like many people around the
world, Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and the character of
Indiana Jones has become a part of my life. It's no
different than following a sports team, or being a fan
of a music act. Something about people who entertain you
makes a connection. You forge a bond, even if it's in
your own mind, with these icons. It's doubtful that the
Dallas Cowboys will sit down to dinner with their most
die hard fans. It's also doubtful that Lucas and
Spielberg will invite me to their picnics in the
Hamptons because I love most of their movies. With
"Indiana Jones" or "Star Wars," fans have invested not
only their money in those franchises, but they've
invested a little bit of themselves in them, too. The
whole enterprise that comes with the "Indiana Jones"
films have become a part of us. We're almost a part of
Steven, George and Harrison's family for two hours.
Indeed, they're only movies and made to entertain. To
each his/her own if they want to get deeper into the
cult of Indy. But if the audience has invested a bit of
themselves into your work of art, it's not too much to
ask for satisfying results. One could argue that the
people who put sports teams on the field, or the people
who make movies, are multimillionaire/billionaire
tycoons who couldn't care less about their audiences. I
don't think that's totally the case with the makers of
"Indiana Jones." I think Spielberg, especially, loves to
please his audience. Just on this adventure, he and the
"Indiana Jones" crew took the safe route.
I've read reviews (from normal viewers, not critics) who
took issue with everything from the use of computerized
visual effects, to John Williams' score, to the monkeys
and prairie dogs, to Janusz Kaminski's cinematography.
There are a lot of things about the film to nit-pick,
but let's be fair. Most of these elements are good, but
as whole, they don't add up.
Back when the first "Indy" movies were made, ILM used
the some of the most modern technology available to
them. Remember, when "Last Crusade" was released, "The
Abyss" with its water pod CGI effect hadn't been
released yet. So the use of modern effects in "Crystal
Skull" was fine by me, though I would've loved to see
some horrifying practical effects. The monkey scene in
the jungle would've been fine for me if Spielberg left
it with Mutt and the monkey staring at each other. That
was funny. The whole swinging through the vines was just
silly. Mutt's harrowing ride through the jungle wasn't
all that wonderful, and enough with the crotch jokes. As
for the prairie dogs, they didn't bug me. The "Indy"
films have always had humor, and I found them humorous.
Williams' score was pretty and nice, but I can't
remember anything new about it. In each of the first
three movies, there was a distinct theme and each of
them was memorable. Not in this one. I'm not sure if the
score was mixed too low, or if the fact that digital
sound takes away from the visceral experience (there is
a difference between hearing a movie in digital sound
versus analog). Either way, I didn't leave the theatre
humming.
Kaminski's cinematography is top-notch and very
reminiscent of the previous films in many ways. There
were some shots in the movie that I thought I was
watching vintage 1980s cinematography from any one of
the "Indiana Jones" film. He is one excellent DP
(director of photography). Yet, as with much of
Kaminski's previous work on Spielberg's movies, I felt
that his style is rather cold. I'm not sure if it's his
lighting style, or his placement of the camera...I'm not
sure how to pinpoint it. I can only react to it. His
style is excellent, but for whatever reason, it doesn't
quite work in "Crystal Skull." Douglas Slocombe's
cinematography seemed a little more loose and lighter in
tone.
"Crystal Skull," as flat as it is, will cause people die
hard fans to debate its merits for years. The same thing
happened when Lucas revisited "Star Wars" with mixed
results. "Was 'Phantom Menace" really that bad?'" I know
I went back to see it a few times just to make sure I
wasn't imagining things such as bad story development,
annoying characters and stiff acting. Part of me felt
that there were moments of brilliance, and then moments
of sheer terror that this wasn't the same "Star Wars" I
fondly remembered. The same goes for "Crystal Skull."
Many "fan boys" have cried foul and bitched at mostly
Lucas for ruining their lives. They say, he ruined their
memories of the original "Star Wars" movies, now he
ruins their lives with "Crystal Skull." Their movie
memories have been ruined, not their lives. And I've
haven't had the desire to check out "Crystal Skull"
again.
The "Star Wars/Indiana Jones" generation has looked up
to not only Indiana Jones, but to George and Steven. It
was their enthusiasm for making entertaining crowd
pleasers that created that "fan boy" base. So when they
sneeze, or announce a new movie, we wag our imaginary
tails and wait impatiently for their movies to come out.
It's easy for a film fan to pick apart the problems one
might have with a movie. We're not the ones standing in
Spielberg or Lucas' shoes. They really have nothing else
to prove to audiences. They've more than made their mark
on audiences and the film industry. Perhaps we've
elevated Spielberg and Lucas to a higher level and
expect too much. We created their mythological status.
Lately, though, the re-imagining of both "Star Wars" and
"Indiana Jones" haven't been what they've implanted in
our imaginations. These newer movies are different from
their predecessors. We're in a nostalgic age. Rock bands
that we thought would never get back together have
gotten back together. We continue to see old standby
movies or television shows being remade for the big
screen. Songs are consistently remade. Not much is fresh
anymore. Most everything now is comfort food. Perhaps
it's time to let go of the past and try new foods.
I'm a geek and I probably thought too much about this
after seeing the movie. Time goes on and people (even
the "Movie Brats") mellow with maturity. I know I'm a
bit older, maybe not more wiser. I know deep inside my
being that there is a kid who still cherishes the
thought of seeing a new "Indiana Jones" movie. But if
you're going to bring back an action hero who is
youthful with a sense of adventure and smarts, do it
well. "Indy 4" feels like a family reunion, but not the
kind of reunion worth attending. I wouldn't go so far as
requesting my money back from Lucas and Spielberg. But I
sure wish they and the gang of "Indy" would've taken a
bit more time to figure out what made Indy tick. I'm
probably being too hard on the film. As George would
say, or even Harrison Ford would say, it's just a movie
and the sun will rise tomorrow like it always has.
Bill Kallay
Photos: © Lucasfilm/Paramount. All rights reserved.